The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Gunsmithing Re: MRC PH action, What do you guy's think? POLLGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Re: MRC PH action, What do you guy's think? POLL | Login/Join |
| one of us |
Allen, I agree 100% that varrying from the model 70 footprint was a terrible mistake (something Williams Firearms is also on the way to doing). Especially the ommission of the middle guard screw. However, I think McMillan already inlets for the standard and short MRC 99 actions. The PH could be an entirely different issue however. | ||
|
one of us |
  This could be your last chance if it's not already too late to critique this product or give opinions to what you think is good or bad about it. I think the bridges should be a little higher and the front bridge should extend all the way to the front of the action. < !--color-->The gunsmith can always mill of the bridge to the desired height, but it would be hard to add to it. Also with the bridge extended to the front of tha action, wouldn't that look better if the customer wanted add a quarter rib sight to the rifle? What do you think? Terry | |||
|
| one of us |
I agree with a couple of the above posters. I like it but would like to have the front bridge extended to the front of the receiver and a bigger recoil lub. One question I do have, has MRC ever decided on the magazine? Drop box? | |||
|
one of us |
I really think it is premature to guess what the final action will really be like in its entirity. Whether or not it is a model 70 footprint is impossible to say from what I have seen. If it would happen to be a good magnum Mauser footprint in its final dress I'm sure a lot of people would be happy. All I have seen are some computer drawn pictures and a forged receiver. I would like to see a more finished product before I would voice any opinion on what needs changing. As far as using a cast receiver, I see nothing wrong with this if the bolts are made and final machined and finished to fit the receiver AFTER its final finishing. From what I have seen on some other actions of this type that wasn't the case, and both fit and finish were lacking. I would be more concerned with a few other details on how this action will actually be in the end. I do know MRC has a great metalsmith, with lots of experience in remodeling actions for big bore rifles, who posts on this board occasionally, in their backyard. There is also a smith not so very far from them who builds lots of big bore rifles on every action imaginable, that are legend for functioning properly. If they have any big questions they can go to either of these two for answers, as well as other smiths who have extensive experience with these types of actions. What I have observed in the past is most smiths who build these types of rifles for big bore cartridges extensively modify any action they choose to work with. Mr. Day's favorite rifle builder is a perfect example. He leaves nothing to chance and if something needs changing in his estimation, he changes it. Simple as that!! I have heard of some who will bet $100.00 that you can't make their rifles jam. That is confidence to say the least, but it won't be found in most factory rifles!! Most really good rifle builders do the same, and perhaps some will have different views on things than others. Case in point; I recently saw a Ruger Magnum action, that started life as a 416 Rigby, that was rebuilt and chambered in 585 Nyati(sp?). It had a new massive Mauser-style recoil lug welded on it that was machined so well it looked like it came from the Ruger factory that way. It also had the original safety removed and a new Winchester three-position safety and shroud installed along with a new trigger. The tang was then milled to a very pleasing shape. A new magazine and triggerguard were changed to fit the new round. This action not only looked great it fed the cartridges like they grew up together. This project would probably never be undertaken by some who would figure the Ruger action wasn't worth messing with. In fact, I might be one of them, but I sure couldn't argue with the finished product. I'm sorry I got a little long winded here, but I'm for letting MRC get a little further on this action before covering it with gripes and claims of short comings. I have faith in them because of their track record so far on making things right that were shortcomings. I also don't much care about cosmetic things on this type of action. What I want is an action that a quality big bore rifle builder is comfortable using as a basis for one of his creations. | |||
|
| one of us |
Couple questions, possible rhetorical in nature, couple of opinions. Why would or should they stick with the Model 70 footprint when this is going to be a BIG action? I.e, bigger than anything Winchester currently makes. Question: What advantage does the third screw offer? I recall reading something about this but can't remember. Why do Williams and some other outfits do a land office business selling one piece bottom metal with two screws to replace the two piece Model 70 stuff that requires three screws? As to inletting, McMillan will inlet their stocks to anything that will fit in them - I have two Winchester Model 70's sitting in McMillan Remington BDL stocks. The first person to have McMillan write the inletting program for the MRC PH action will probably pay the couple hundred bucks or whatever it is they charge - after that everyone else gets a free ride. I think Jack Belk (bless his absent little heart) wrote on some issues about cast vs. forged. Cast can be every bit as good and as strong as forged, it all depends on the alloy and who is doing the casting. I do believe that Pine Tree casting has a pretty good reputation in respect to this - at least I haven't heard of any Ruger RSM's falling apart due to porous or otherwise poorly cast parts. Someone correct me here but aren't a lot of very critically balanced jet engine parts made of cast metal - obviously with some machining added but still, they start off as cast? Shouldn't have to add this but with the current tone of many of the threads going on here... Not offering any arguments or denigrating someone else's opinion - just asking a few honest questions and offering my personal take on things. | |||
|
one of us |
Quote: Gentlemen, We have considered greatly our options on modifying the original model 70 footprint for all of our actions, but after looking at the pros and cons of each, we will be utilizing the original footprint on our short and long actions. The shear availability of stocks overwhelms the other notable benefits. When it comes to our small and magnum actions, it's uncharted territory, just as it is for MRC. The Model 70 is not set up to handle cartridges like the 416 Rigby, and 585 Nyati. I know that their are gunsmiths who put these up, at least the Rigby, on Model 70's, but the rim is too large for a .700" diameter bolt. So, if you increase the bolt diameter, you must increase the ring diameter as well. They also lack the amount of room in the magazine box to accomadate enough cartridges to make it worth your while, even with drop-box system. It's the old saying that you can't stuff ten gallons a crap in a 5 gallon bucket. It just doesn't work. By and large, the folks that are interested in acquiring a rifle that will handle such cartridges are more apt to purchase a custom stock as well. When our manfucturing process is up and rolling, we will be offering inletting services for our receivers, as well as the bottom metal. The only requirement will be that we get a turned blank, that has had the inletting ommited, so that we can finish it. We've already done many inletting services for our bottom metal, working from rude crude factory inletting. This job will lend itself to being much easier. We've worked directly with McMillan, as well as Brown Precision, so having them up to speed will be an easy task as well. As for the middle guard screw issue, to each is own I guess. There are some hard facts as to what it does, and what it does not. First, it weakens the actions behind the magazine box by taking out material in that area, something the model 70-style ejector does as well. Second, if the middle guard screw is overtightened, it will put excessive pressure on the mag box, causing ill effects on accuracy. Third, it's only purpose in life is to hold onto the trigger guard in the front section because it is not attatched to the hinge by means of a connecting rail. What it does not do is increase the strength of the action, accuracy, or aid in bedding, or cosmetic appeal IMO. Now, if you must have the middle guard screw, then I'd be looking for receivers that have been manufactured in the past because USRAC will be dropping that design and going with a aluminum One-Piece unit. While we're not happy about it, we will be able to offer drop-in replacements for dealer and retail sales. Basically, they took our design and casted it into aluminum. They saw the lack of need for the screw just as many aftermarket manufacturers have as well, they just approached the problem wrong, letting the bean counters dictate the product. | |||
|
| one of us |
Not to put anyone on the spot here, but I would be interested to here what D'Arcy Echols and Tom Burgess have to say regarding the middle guard screw issue. If nothing else, it saves the weight of the bloody "picture frame" that holds everything togethor. Quote: Sounds fine to me. In fact, maybe they could be talked into leaving all of the holes out of the bottom of that action. That way a gunsmith could correctly space them and mill them straight to begin with. Cable ties around the action and stock ought to hold em togethor until I get my hands on them. I'm glad to hear that the footprint of the Williams action will match the model 70, but was disapointed when browsing your site the other day and didn't see any floorplate assemblies for the 70. | |||
|
| <allen day> |
If I want a .416 Rigby-size mechanism, I'll go with a high-quality action such as Granite Mtn.'s. USRAC's quality had been circling the drain for the last several years. For a while, and this was before the move to SC, USRAC tried to palm-off a plastic magazine follower to replace the stainless follower in the Model 70. They called the plastic job, an "improvement".... Then they moved to SC, and general quality went downhill, and everyone saw it for what it was right off the bat. Next, the original 1936-design firing pin stop screw was eliminated. No doubt this was felt to be an "improvement" as well - the same thing Olin/Winchester said about the 1964 Model 70 abomination. Now the original-style 'WINCHESTER/Trademark' logo was modified from the receiver to add "License from Olin" or something to that effect. This looks like hell, but no doubt pleases Olin's legal department to no end! And now the grand announcement that the middle screw design is to be replaced - no doubt another "improvement". Now I ask you, has anyone ever heard of a manufacturing shortcut or cost-cutting move from any gun manufacturer that hasn't been pass-off as an "improvement"? I never have! I think I'm going to stockpile a few more pre-64 and pre-SC Classic Model 70s while I can. The new ones don't cut it with me, and it sounds like the ones to come will be even worse. AD | ||
|
| one of us |
Quote: Allen, your choice to go with an overpriced action such as the Granite Mountain action is completely up to you, but I doubt that there are that many people who would be willing to pay $3,000.00 for an action that can be obtained for a third of the cost with no compromising in materials or workmanship. But, to each is own. You obviously have some strong issues regarding the middle guard screw theory. What exactly is it that would make you feel that it was necessary to have? Not trying to be argumentative, just curios. What benefits are you seeing with it that no one else seems to? As far as the firing pin stop screw, it was done soley as a cost cutting measure. Since that screws resides in a totaly different plane than any other operation on the bolt shroud that is performed, it meant a seperate setup, which adds money. The reason that is was removed is not near as important as why it was there in the first place. In order to fully understand it, you must look back to the 03 Springfield. That's where the trouble began...Their design of the cocking piece and firing pin assembly had a flawed part. They used inferior material, and subsequently got the part too hard in heat treat, causing it to be very brittle. When that section broke that was holding the tension of the firing pin spring, it would allow the whole firing pin assembly to come straight back into the shooters forehead....not a good place to be. Like most engineering marvels that we see from the gun industry, instead of fixing the real problem, they added the screw to stop the assembly from coming back when it did break. Well, the fruit didn't fall far from the tree when Winchester picked up the ball. They initially had heat treat problems with their components as well, even though they hadn't utilized the same manufacturing techniques as Springfield, so they adopted the screw as well. In fact, even the sleeve lock on the bolt shroud is completely interchangable with the 03. Since all this began, they began making the firing pin retainer rings from better materials, and performing a better heat treat process on them, eliminating the breakage problem. The breakage problem has been eliminated for so long, that the stop screw has become something that wasn't necessary anymore. With changes in materials and heat treat we are able to do things that would have never been possible in the early days of Winchester. Just the thought of touching off a cartridge that produced 65,000 psi in an old receiver would be the makings of your very own toe tag. Now, it's more and more common with the short, fat magnums and their longer counterparts. Winchester most definitely made a large mistake with the movement of the company to SC, but they were making bad receivers long before that. The most sought after pre-64's pale in comparison to fit and finish that can be obtained with modern equipment and someone who knows how to run it. While they're better than what you're seeing now, that's not much of a comparison. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: Sorry about the confusion on that one. We are still making the floorplates, we just haven't got the website fully updated. Hopefully soon we'll be able to get our heads above water from our production and get that taken care of. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I would really like to know what is the decided upon bolt diameter of the PH action, I had cancleld my order for three actions upon reading a certain couple of threads and getting a little flighty but I may re-instate my order for one PH action if the bolt diameter is significantly larger than that on a cz. Regards PC. | |||
|
| one of us |
Glad to hear that you are still making them. | |||
|
| <Guest> |
Triggerguard I keep going to your website to see if there is any information on this "action" that your company is producing, and I never see anything there. Maybe I haven't watched these threads close enough and you posted something on it before, but maybe not. What exactly is it you are going to be making. Will it be machined or cast. What exact sizes will it come in. What metals will it come in (e.g. both C/m and Stainless)? What boltfaces will it come in. And what will its pricepoint be? The reason I ask these questions is because as you are well aware there is the availability to get in on the program with Montana Rifle to get one of their big actions for a pre-production price. It would be good to know what you are offering before making a decision!!!!! I am sitting here looking at a Norma .404 Jeff Case and a pristine 1909 Action. Somehow I don't think they were made for each other!!!! Blue | ||
|
| one of us |
Quote: Blue, We haven't added that to our site because we didn't want to get the market too stirred up before we had them available. Here's a link to the thread I started some time ago that outlines the basic details of our recievers and prices. [url=http://www.accuratereloading.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB5&Number=201694&Forum=,,,,,f5,,,,,&Words="Williams%20Firearms"&Searchpage=5&Limit=25&Main=201694&Search=true&where=sub&Name=&daterange=0&newerval=&newertype=&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev=#Post201694]Williams Firearms Actions[/url] There are a few other threads that discuss in detail that you can access with a search. Some of which included John Rick's visit to our facility, and his thought on our project. We've made some changes along the way, but for the most part all of our actions will be available under $1,000.00. Now that may seem high to some, but the fact that it is an action that doesn't need anymore final work done to it as far as blueprinting, feeding, etc., it's actually lower than what you'll spend for a comparable action from the many manfacturers that are out there. | |||
|
| one of us |
Matt, I am one of those with the SC action. Do you have a suitable replacement follower?. mine is a LH 375 H&H? Thank You Jim | |||
|
| one of us |
MRC PH. The picture shows a receiver made in such a way that it has enough mass of metal to be set up for either theCZ /current,or various comercial actions which use a separate sheet metal mag box ,T guard strip with plate set up ,(or) a one piece mag box in the Commercial Mauser style of hallowed memory. The rear tang area can be trimmed to suit various tastes and needs. The recoil lug could extend right out through the bottom and still split the stock because the wood cross section is of limited length from there to front of magazine. A sheetmetal box even if heat treated and so perfectly inletted that there was contact all the way around, could and still would buckle inward in recoil enough so that the wood cross section ultimately shears. Crossbolts don't need that much contact with the recoil lug , therefor it doesnt need so much recoil surface. Highth of flats. Hard to tell from picture just how high above the bore they might be. Would I like to see the flat continue to the receiver face? Absolutely. What does this entail? It means that about as much metal from the face to the top of the flat would of necessity need be added to the receiver front, then milled off. Poured metal doesn't flow like we want it to do. That part would tend to sluff in the pour and not fill in the mold properly. I suspect that MRC would like to accommodate us on this one, but may have had to give in to the stubborness of the pour. Bolt lug dimensions. When they have it right The factory turns out bolts for the M-70 that are about .400" tall. Mauser, .432". Enfield about .452. Base of the .505 Gibbs is about .640. When a case or load is to be ejected and there is a round on the Rt hand side in the magazine feed well, this load or empty must climb up and over that body which must be up high enough to be picked up by the bolt. When those conditons for mag feeding are met this means that the ejecting round is as high or would like to be higher at the base end than the diameter of the bolt body bore. That means that the top Rt. inside lug raceway must be removed where there is interference with the ejecting case body. If you simply cut the bridge and side back to clear this then you have damned little usable surface for a scope mount. Look at the pix for the CZ M 550. The side is not as long as the bridge top deck. This was the CZ solution and a valid one. A bolt guide rib does not enter the bridge to prevent rotary movement in this instance until it is too late to prevent the typical bind in forward movement of the bolt. Almost anything you set out to do designing an action of this sort will if carried too far to suit one groups desired utility will impinge on the usefulness for another. MRC's design group has endeavored to provide a platform with the greatest flexibility they could design into it and the last thing of concern has been production savings. From brief comments to them about it there was little doubt on their part that this action simply was not going to lend itself to significant production savings by not drilling and tapping an extra guard screw hole or anything in that direction. The design is such that the rear section is actually stiffer than the standard 98 Mauser and vastly stiffer than the typical M-70. | |||
|
| one of us |
They are supposed to have a bigger bolt. and a bunch of us want them to make action diameter larger also.With bigger barrel threads.Why the need to be like a Mod 70, when we want it big and longer.Set up for a mag box of 4.5 inches. We need decent priced actions for big cases..Ed | |||
|
| <Guest> |
MR. WILLIAMS PLEASE, STIR US UP. SHOW US SOMETHING!!!!! Blue  | ||
|
| one of us |
Quote: Mr. Burgess, I understand the need for cost savings with this action, but if they can get it to flow into the recoil lug section, I think they should be able to accommodate us on the front bridge too. As far as the flat's and height of the bridge, I know it's just an issue of aesthetics, but I'd sure like to see it. On the 3rd action screw issue, I see no need for it. I've always considered the 3rd screw to be a hindrance on accuracy anyway. On the cast Vs milled, I really don't think it has a place in this thread as I'm sure that's set in stone. The action will be cast. Terry | |||
|
one of us |
I too would like the option of the front bridge flush with the end of the reciever ring. I would also like the option of buying the action without bottom metal for the one time you know you're not gonna use it. Hate to waste a piece that won't fit anything else. | |||
|
| one of us |
Hey guys, This is exactly what we wanted to hear. The reason I posted the photos of the PH in the first place was to get everyones opinion of what we were looking at. Like I said we didn't get a lot of "change this or that" at the Shot Show, but you guys have brought up some very interesting points. I will print out every page of this post and forward to the boss and we'll see where it goes from there. Remember that the photos are of our 2nd generation prototype. We still have room for improvements. That is what we are here for, we want you guys to help design it. Dan | |||
|
| One of Us |
My suggestions: 1. Longer front bridge 2. Bridges should be 50-80% higher. 3. Needs a true mauser bolt release both to be classy and for superior functionality. I would be ok with military mauser surplus bolt releases installed on these. 4. Needs a true Obendorf commercial bolt handle - NO SWEEP. This action is for large heavy recoiling cartridges, and the bolt should be set up for those cartridges from the factory, or a lot of guys are going to get their knuckles thumped by the bolt handle during recoil. Check out the Reimer Johannsen ads in Hatari Times to see a proper bolt handle. 5. Deeper recoil lug by at least 50%. 6. Make mag box deep enough to fit 5 rounds of 505 Gibbs down. Then it will be an action that will fit some of the big bore wildcats with at least 3 down. If the action only fits 3 rounds of 505 gibbs down, then guys are going to have to build their own mag box for the big bore wildcats, making the action less desirable. 7. Needs a model 70 style safety, but should be threaded that any MAUSER safety will fit, including the military flag safety. Thanks for the pic. | |||
|
| one of us |
Hey Everyone, I printed out this whole thread for the owner and now the wheels are turning. He is currently (as I am writing this) going over measurements and the possibilities of everything that was said here. He said he agreed that the recoil lug was not deep enough, and he has tossed around the idea of the front bridge extending to the end of the receiver. Believe me he is really looking at everything you guys are saying and it looking at the feasibility of it. I'll keep you posted when I have new information. Dan | |||
|
| one of us |
Dan, 500grains has some good ideas. I'd especially like to see you copy a true Mauser type bolt shroud with a M70 type (horizontal) 3 pos safety. Being designed primarily for Africa I think this type of shroud would make the action look very classic in apperance! I hope you will at least consider this.... If not as standard option possibly as an upgrade? Regards, Dave | |||
|
| <Guest> |
If you want to see a 3 position (model 70 type) bolt shroud that looks somewhat like a Mauser bolt shroud, take a look at the one from New England Custom Gun Service. Theirs seems to be the one closest in looks to the original mauser style shroud, whereas most of the other ones look a lot like the FN or Browning (Mark X) type shroud. Blue | ||
|
| One of Us |
Matt, I agree with you on a number of things and disagree on others but none enough to get bloody over, lol. I do think the square bridges should be higher but I would rather not have them extend to the front ring and that is aesthetics for me. Although if they did extend there, it would be a fairly simple matter to mill it off and then both camps would be happy. I think they should take a close look at the Granite Mountain Arms treatment of the rear bridge and leave it back and allow a feeding notch for loading. I also would like to see the bridges be wider and use a tanget off the surface of the rings raduising up to the top edge of the bridge. This will allow a smith to either cut it for a ring like a Talley or some other treatment. If they put too little metal on it you are stuck with what a limited range for rings. Also agree with you on the middle screw. It was only there because Winchester went with 2 position bottom metal and that was based on economy and the need to have some adjustment to get the floor plate to latch well. If they had put in one piece bottom metal the 3rd screw is unnecessary. I spent a very nice Saturday at the San Diego SCI Banquet as an exhibitor and spoke at length with Mike Roden of Granite Mountain Arms. We are looking at some bartering between the two of us, invlolving stocks and actions. I did get to look at one of Joe Smithson's fantastic quick detach rings cut into the bridges on those actions. They are coming back dead nuts to exactly the same spot, time after time. The targets shot this to be true. It comes off so fast and locks on so positively. It stuns you with it's watch like precision. And there I was all day with a digital camera and did not take a photo of it. I will ask Mike to take some and send them to me and I will post them. If I want something a rifle based on this PH model with the rounds that they have intended to fit into this action, I certainly do not want it on the dimensions of a Model 70. Winchester did not make a do all, be all action with that. Trying to make everything fit in one size fits all means it fits very rarely and everything else suffers from the comprimise. The bottom metal is not there but I hope they offer it with a drop box. | |||
|
one of us |
I would like the metal smith guys to answer a question regarding these long actions and two screw M70 bottom metal. Is there a possibility for the rail type triggerguard unit to bow or flex with the magazine loaded fully with heavy rounds and the follower spring pressure? I would assume there would be no chance of flex with a 3 screw unit. | |||
|
| <allen day> |
Matt, I don't agree that the Granite Mountain action is over-priced. To me, it's beautifully-built and worth the money. I have found that for the most part, you get what you pay for what it comes to custom rifle components or the services of a gifted craftsman. What I DO find to be over-priced is a custom rifle product that is the result of someone trying to build it to fit within a specific price price parameter, and then cutting corners to achieve that price. Maybe I'm an odd consumer, but I'm more interested in how good something can be built rather than how cheap. For example, I'm not sure how much Joseph Smithson is getting for that detachable scopemounting system Chic described, but for my purposes, such a system transends price, especially on a rifle I'd use in Africa year after year on cape buffalo, lion, etc. I couldn't think of anything better or more practical than a .416 Rigby built on a GM action with a set of super detachable mounts like those of Smithson's for stuff that can fight back, especially with Tanzanian and Zambian hunts going for what they do these days. AD | ||
|
| one of us |
Quote: There's really no chance, if anything, less chance than the three screw design, simply because in the three screw system you have the floorplate that is connected to the hinge holding everything together. With our bottom metal, as well as SunnyHill's the box is trapped within the steel rail..I may be mistaken, but I believe Blackburn's is actually sitting on top of the box, at least the one that I have is. I don't know if he's ever changed that or not. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: Well, like I said earlier, to each is own, but with modern equipment that is available today, there's no excuse for having to spend that much money on any action. Our number one goal has always been to provide the product with quality built in. It's been through our method of fixturing and machining experience that has allowed us to keep our costs down. Now, we could go ahead and keep our prices elevated and pocket the rest of the profits, but we've always felt that there are a number of consumers who don't have an unlimited amount of money when it comes to fixing up their rifles, or for that matter, buying new ones. Our competitors don't make 10,000 trigger guards a year, and with their prices, they won't. We have to hold tolerances everyday that most wouldn't consider, and we still do this while being able to supply our customers in high volume. Your first assumption of quality-versus-price is not at all unlike many people in the industry. One believes that quality can't be made without spending an excessive amount of money. In some cases, that's true, but not in all, and certainly not in machine work. The machining industry has evolved leaps and bounds over what it was just 15 years ago. Advances in cutting tools, machines, and coatings for cutting tools have greatly increased our productivity, while keeping the quality at the same or better. There's not a day that goes by that we aren't trying to hone our processes out to get the utmost in efficiency and quality. I refuse to sacrafice one for the other. Our CNC machines are capable of +/-.0002" tolearances all day long on all of the critical features of our parts. Now, I could spend some more time, and whole lot more money, that I would have to pass off to the customer to "hand-fit" these parts, but my handwork skills aren't better than my machine, and either is anyone else's. To handfit a part that has been CNC machined is ludicrous. It sure sign that whoever is doing the machining has got some learning to do. I've looked at the Granite Mountain actions over quite well, and I think that they do a pretty nice job on them, but it doesn't cost that much to build one. If you added up all the material costs alone, you'd be under $50.00, so what they're telling you is, it costs $2950.00 to machine this material. A going shop rate would be $100.00 per hour, so in short, they're saying it takes 29.5 hours per receiver, or their shop rate is pretty damn high. That's a helluva long time to machine a receiver and accessories. | |||
|
| <allen day> |
Matt, I'm not in your business, so I can't understand the challenges and objectives you face - as a manufacturer - day-to-day. It's always easy to side on the sidelines and come to half-baked conclusions: this I know to be true. Again, as a consumer, the only sensible point of decision I could come to is to evaluate two (or more) comparable actions side-by-side, and make my selection based on what I see and deem to be of significance based upon price, features, workmanship, finish, etc. I go through Prineville on a semi-regular basis, and I'd certainly love to come by and see what you're up to, of course with your permission.... AD | ||
|
| one of us |
Matt, Oh boy, now I just gotta see one of your actions....um, please?    Thanks for your input. Huntr | |||
|
| one of us |
Not a problem Allen, just give me a couple days notice, and weekends are best....besides, I'm here every damn day anyway  It would only entail a little paperwork to fill out, and I'd give you the nickel tour  You get down here on a Friday afternoon or Saturday, we could go out to lunch here in town to good burger joint....Just ask John Ricks....I could barely get him out of there. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Allen, you will not believe the price. The rings made for the set up and the square bridges milled to fit is $250. I was amazed and still am. Don't know if that was dealer price but $300 is still a bargain. Roden's partner was just recently in Tanzania with his with the QD Smithsons and he said he took the scope off in such a quick motion and handed it to a tracker that it even surprised the PH. It is such a fluid and easy thing to do. | |||
|
| <allen day> |
Chic, I'm astounded at that number, and that's all I'm going to say.... Matt, I will call! AD | ||
|
| one of us |
My suggestions: 1. Front and rear bridges, higher and wider. Especially wider as pointed out by Customstox. 2. I totally agree with 500grains' assessment that the PH needs a true mauser bolt release both to be classy and for superior functionality. I would be ok with military mauser surplus bolt releases installed on these. A Dangerous Game Rifle needs a bolt release that operates off of something other than a "push button." The rest of my comments mirror those of 500grains. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I hope MRC goes with the drop box idea WITHOUT a third screw. The third screw is a design defect on the model 70 that can lead to accuracy problems. | |||
|
| one of us |
Matt, Good explanation. One thing I can't understand is how some shops can charge upwards of $200 for custom scope bases that look just like upgraded Weavers. I suspect that it comes down to what people are willing to pay. Just wondering. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: You hit the nail on the head with that one....It's simply boils down to what the market will bare. While there is some added machine time in making some of the "picatinny rail" systems, due to the overwhelming amount of adjustment slots that must be machined in, it sure isn't worth the money that some are asking. For the prices that I see on some of this stuff, you'd think they were getting a soaking of "holy water" before they went out for shipment  | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Gunsmithing Re: MRC PH action, What do you guy's think? POLL
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
| View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| Invite $GS_USERNAME to a Private Topic |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |